Supreme Court issues notices to Centre, Election Commission on plea against CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
Court says Election Commission decisions must be unanimous or by majority.
Pleas allege key electoral decisions were taken without concurrence of two commissioners.
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Election Commission and the Centre, seeking their responses within a week on a plea challenging decisions allegedly taken by the poll panel under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar without the approval of its two other members.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said decisions of the Election Commission have to be either unanimous or taken by majority, and presumed that all decisions were being taken in this manner. The bench issued the notice after taking note of submissions by senior advocate Vikas Singh.
The Public Interest Litigation, filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, asks the Supreme Court to examine whether Kumar has been individually exercising powers that legally belong to the Election Commission as a multi-member body and, if so, declare such actions unauthorised and take appropriate legal action.
The plea has also sought Kumar's suspension from the post of Chief Election Commissioner pending the final hearing, with the commission's business during that period to be conducted by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
Pleas Challenge ‘Individual’ Exercise Of EC Powers
One of the petitions, filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, asks the Supreme Court to examine whether Kumar individually exercised powers that legally belong to the Election Commission as a multi-member body.
The plea seeks Kumar’s suspension pending the final hearing, arguing that this is necessary to preserve the “multi-member character” of the poll panel. It has also sought directions for the commission’s business to be conducted by Sandhu and Joshi during Kumar’s suspension.
The petition comes against the backdrop of an Indian Express report which said Sandhu and Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times over the past 10 months to decisions and orders concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The two commissioners had reportedly objected to decisions they said were issued without their knowledge or recommendation. The Election Commission, however, has maintained that differing views and observations are a normal part of institutional deliberations, and that its orders have full legal sanction and follow established statutory procedures.
Plea Challenges Form 6 Changes
A separate petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, through advocate Chand Qureshi, alleges that the CEC's actions violate the statutory requirement of collective decision-making.
The plea has also sought criminal proceedings against Kumar and other officials over an alleged breach of official duty.
One of the key issues raised is the alteration of Form 6, which is used for voter registration. The petition alleges that requirements relating to ancestral details and links with the previous SIR were introduced through the poll panel's software without the statutory amendment required under electoral rules.
According to the plea, Sandhu and Joshi had objected to the changes and maintained that the prescribed form could not be altered without following the required statutory procedure.
The petition seeks a declaration that decisions, guidelines, directives and software modifications allegedly undertaken without the full commission's concurrence, or contrary to the majority view of the election commissioners, are unconstitutional and void.
The petitions have also raised concerns over electoral roll revisions in Goa and West Bengal.
In Goa, the plea alleges that the software lacked a feature to restore 97 eligible electors despite directions for their verification. In West Bengal, it claims that more than 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in the name of the Election Commission against voters whose names had been restored by judicial officers. The plea alleges that the two other election commissioners and the West Bengal chief electoral officer were neither aware of nor authorised these appeals.
The Union Law Ministry, Election Commission, Gyanesh Kumar, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, Vivek Joshi and senior poll panel official Maneesh Garg have been made parties to the petition.
The Supreme Court has sought responses within a week. The matter will be taken up after the responses are filed.
